January 09, 2026|Franchise Frontlines
January 9, 2026 | United States District Court for the District of New Jersey | Opinion and Order
Executive Summary
In Doe (J.T.A.) v. Wyndham Hotels & Resorts, Inc., 2026 WL 73727 (D.N.J. Jan. 9, 2026), Judge Susan D. Wigenton granted in part a motion to dismiss filed by a Florida Ramada franchisee in a Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (“TVPRA”) case, holding that the District of New Jersey lacked personal jurisdiction over the franchisee. Although the franchisor defendants were headquartered in New Jersey, the alleged trafficking occurred entirely at a Florida hotel. The court concluded that the franchisee’s use of franchisor systems, adherence to brand standards, and ongoing contractual relationship with a New Jersey-based franchisor were insufficient to establish specific jurisdiction. Rather than dismissing the claims, the court transferred the case to the Middle District of Florida. The ruling provides meaningful guidance on personal jurisdiction limits in franchise-based TVPRA litigation.
Relevant Background
Plaintiff alleged that from 2013 through 2015 she was trafficked at a Ramada-branded hotel in Orlando, Florida. She brought claims under the TVPRA, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591 and 1595, asserting both perpetrator and beneficiary liability theories against Wyndham Hotels & Resorts and related franchisor entities headquartered in New Jersey, as well as the Florida-based franchisee that owned and operated the Orlando property.
The franchisee moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue under Rules 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(3). The franchisee was a Florida limited liability company with its principal place of business in Florida, and the alleged trafficking conduct occurred exclusively at the Florida hotel.
Plaintiff argued that specific jurisdiction existed in New Jersey because the franchisee entered into a franchise agreement governed by New Jersey law, used New Jersey-based reservation and payment systems, and operated under brand standards developed and enforced by the franchisor in New Jersey.
Decision
The court first addressed general jurisdiction and quickly concluded that the franchisee was not “at home” in New Jersey. The franchisee was incorporated and maintained its principal place of business in Florida. Under Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014), that was dispositive.
Turning to specific jurisdiction, the court applied the familiar three-part test: (1) purposeful availment; (2) claims arising out of or relating to forum contacts; and (3) fair play and substantial justice.
The court acknowledged that entering into a franchise agreement with a New Jersey-based franchisor constituted purposeful availment under Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985). However, the second prong—whether the claims arose out of or related to the forum contacts—proved decisive.
Relying heavily on Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, 582 U.S. 255 (2017), and Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (2014), the court held that the relevant inquiry focuses on the defendant’s own contacts with the forum state that are tied to the litigation. The alleged trafficking conduct—room rentals, supervision, and day-to-day operations—occurred entirely in Florida. The franchisee’s use of franchisor reservation systems, payment processing platforms, and brand policies originating in New Jersey did not create the necessary nexus between New Jersey and the plaintiff’s injury.
The court characterized the connection to New Jersey as “too attenuated,” emphasizing that jurisdiction cannot be based solely on a franchisee’s contractual relationship with a franchisor headquartered in the forum state.
Having determined that personal jurisdiction was lacking and that venue was improper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391, the court elected to transfer the case to the Middle District of Florida pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) rather than dismissing it. In the interest of judicial economy, the court also transferred the claims against the franchisor defendants to Florida.
Importantly, the court did not reach the Rule 12(b)(6) merits arguments.
Looking Forward
This decision reinforces several procedural guardrails that are particularly relevant in hospitality and franchise-based TVPRA litigation.
First, routine franchise system interactions—reservation systems, centralized payment processing, data reporting, brand standards, and contract governance clauses—do not automatically establish specific personal jurisdiction over a franchisee in the franchisor’s home state. The constitutional inquiry remains focused on whether the plaintiff’s claims arise out of the defendant’s own forum-directed conduct.
Second, courts continue to apply Bristol-Myers rigorously in multi-state tort and statutory claims. Even substantial business contacts with a forum may be insufficient where the operative facts giving rise to the claim occurred elsewhere.
Third, transfer—not dismissal—remains the typical remedy when venue is improper in trafficking cases. Plaintiffs are not deprived of a forum, but the litigation proceeds in the jurisdiction most closely tied to the alleged conduct.
The ruling does not address whether the franchisee or franchisor may ultimately face liability under the TVPRA. Rather, it underscores the importance of carefully analyzing personal jurisdiction on a defendant-by-defendant basis in franchise systems that operate across state lines.
For franchisors and multi-unit operators, the case highlights the continuing vitality of constitutional limits on forum selection in nationwide brand systems, while leaving the merits of underlying trafficking claims to be resolved in the appropriate venue.
This article is based solely on the opinion of the Court in this matter. The author has not conducted any independent investigation into the facts. For the avoidance of doubt, each statement related to the law and facts in this article is drawn from the Court’s opinion in this case.
Thomas O’Connell is a Shareholder at Buchalter LLP and Chair of the firm’s Franchise Practice Group. For questions about this article or media inquiries, you can contact Tom at toconnell@buchalter.com.
This communication is not intended to create, and does not create, an attorney-client relationship or any other legal relationship. No statement herein constitutes legal advice, nor should it be relied upon or interpreted as such. This communication is for general informational purposes only and is not a substitute for legal counsel. Readers should not act or refrain from acting based on any information provided without seeking appropriate legal advice specific to their situation. For more information, visit www.buchalter.com.
